Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office action based on the 17/680195 RCE filed 07/29/2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, & 8-18, 26 have been fully considered and examined as shown below.
Claims 19-25 & 27-28 are withdrawn.
Claims 2-3 & 6-7 are cancelled.
Claims 26-28 are newly added. It is noted that newly added claims 27 & 28 depends on withdrawn and non-elected claims 19 & 23. Therefore it is also withdrawn and should be listed as so if applicant response. Further, since claims 27 & 28 are withdrawn, the only newly added examined claim is Claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-10 & 16-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of MCDANIEL in US 20100233146 and in further view of GREENE in in US 20100036230 and further in view of JU in Equilibrium and dynamic surface tension of quaternary ammonium salts with different hydrocarbon chain length of counterions.
With respect to Claim 1, LIN teaches of a method of a device/system, comprising a first electrode electrically coupled to a second electrode, wherein a material layer is disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph 0007, 0024, 0027, 0044-0045, 0060-0063);
Wherein, an AC voltage potential is applied to the first electrode in a frequency sweep mode and an output AC impedance current resulting from the application of the voltage (paragraph 0005, abstract);
The electrode where the voltage and a second electrode are coated in a material layer (paragraph 0007, 0027) and overall the device/system has a layered structure including as shown on Figure 6: Base layer (102), sensor (100), conductive layer (104), polymer coatings in a protective layer (106), an analyte sensing layer (110), adhesion promoter layer (114), and analyte modulating layer (112) (see paragraphs 0050-0054).
LIN teaches that the polymer coating protective layer/coating (106) can be made of silicone compounds, polyimides, biocompatible solder masks, epoxy acrylate copolymers (paragraph 0050, 0068). LIN more specifically teach that the polymer layer 106 can include but aren’t limited to epoxy acrylate copolymers “or the like,” (paragraph 0050).
LIN teaches that the analyte sensing layer (110) that is contained in the coating (coating protective layer 106), through broadest reasonable interpretation, can be comprise and enzyme such as glucose oxidase, which can be considered a “chemical active,” as enzymes are active and layer 110 is “contained in,” layer 106 (paragraph 0027, 0045), and that analyte modulating later (112)--- which selectively limits the diffusion of glucose or other chemical therethrough (paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0044-0045, 0066).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LIN teaches that the device/system of LIN is used to measure the material properties of the material (abstract).
LIN does not teach of the polymer layer being biphasic specifically.
MCDANIEL is used to remedy this and teaches of acrylic adhesive polymer coating which is biphasic in that it has an acrylic resin (polyacrylate) and an activator.
Specifically, MCDANIEL teaches of coating materials such as adhesives which comprise materials like enzymes ( active components) for coating surfaces (substrate)(abstract, paragraph 0005).
MCDANIEL teaches that the coating can be/include an acrylic resin (paragraph 0028) including epoxy resins (paragraph 0028) or acrylic or epoxy adhesive or an polyacrylate (paragraphs 0032-0033). MCDANIEL further teaches that impact modifiers are used as part of the coating and that the impact modifier can be a two-phase (biphasic) polymer material (paragraph 1301). Two phase polymers have two distinct phases of a polymer matrix and a dispersed phase which can be solid liquid or another polymer. MCDANIEL teaches that the polymer
MCDANIEL further teaches that the coating can include an antistatic agent such as a quaternary ammonium compound, which could be considered an “Active component (paragraph 1272) and further of the polymeric coating materials which include the active component/quaternary ammonium compound dissolved in a solvent (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims to use a biphasic polymer included in the coating as is done in MCDANIEL in the device of LIN due to the advantage making the polymers two phases in improving impact strength (paragraph 1301).
LIN and MCDANIEL do not teach of the chemical active—quaternary ammonium being mobile in the coating/polymer. GREENE is used to remedy this.
GREENE teaches of Sample 2 including acrylic adhesive including 20% by weight of quaternary ammonium salt (chemical active)(paragraph 0072). The acrylic adhesive and salt exhibited a balanced inter-molecular attraction to themselves and each other such that the salt remained suspended within the acrylic adhesive without blooming or crystallizing.
Teaching of suspended/a suspension as done in GREENE shows that the larger size quaternary ammonium salt particles are suspended within the acrylic adhesive—which means that both the quaternary ammonium salt particles and the claimed acrylic adhesive particles are mobile within the suspension since in suspensions all components of a suspension are technically in motion/suspended, until over time gravity causes the larger particles to separate out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a mobile coating comprised of two coatings interacting together and specifically the active ingredient./mobile active ingredient quaternary ammonium salt as done in GREENE in the system and methods of LIN and MCDANIEL due to the advantage this has for functionalizing the components coated on while maintaining adhesive strength (paragraph 0072, 0078).
LIN, MCDANIEL and GREENE do not teach that the chemical active (quaternary ammonium salt) has a diffusivity of 10 *-18 m2/s to 10 *-9 m2/s at room temperature though it is noted that this is a material property so teaching of the compound also teaches of this property.
JU is used to remedy this and teaches analysis of quaternary ammonium salts and their properties (abstract). More specifically, GREENE teaches of the quarternary ammonium salt, didecyldimethylammonium carboxylate, having a diffusivity of those shown on Page 611, first column, Table 3, column 3. All of the shown m2/s fall in the claimed range of 10 *-18 m2/s to 10 *-9 m2/s at room temperature, therefore reading on the claimed characterization of the claimed active compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a compound with this diffusivity as taught by JU in the devices of LIN, MCDANIEL, and GREENE due to allow for controlling the energy between adsorption and desorption of the active/quaternary ammonium surfactant (Page 611, column 1, 3.2, paragraph 2). There would have been reasonable expectation of success in combining all of the claim systems and most particularly the claimed polymer specifications in them as they all relate to similar polymer compositions for treating and coating surfaces.
With respect to Claim 5, LIN and MCDANIEL teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the chemical active being present in the claim percent concentration. GREENE is used to remedy this and teaches using a quaternary ammonium salt in 20% by weight in the acrylic(polymeric) adhesive composition/coating (paragraph 0072). This falls in the claimed range for the claimed chemical active weight percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a the active ingredient./mobile active ingredient quaternary ammonium salt as done in GREENE in the weight percent in GREENE in the system and methods of LIN and MCDANIEL due to the advantage this has for functionalizing the components coated on while maintaining adhesive strength (paragraph 0072, 0078).
With respect to Claim 8, LIN and MCDANIEL teaches of the invention as shown above, but does not teach of the chemical active being one of the claimed chemical actives in instant claim 8. GREENE is used to remedy this and teaches using a quaternary ammonium salt in the acrylic(polymeric) adhesive composition/coating (paragraph 0072). This falls in the claimed range for the claimed chemical active weight percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a the active ingredient/mobile active ingredient quaternary ammonium salt as done in GREENE in the weight percent in GREENE in the system and methods of LIN and MCDANIEL due to the advantage this has for functionalizing the components coated on while maintaining adhesive strength (paragraph 0072, 0078).
With respect to Claim 9, LIN and MCDANIEL teaches of the above, but does not teach of the claimed chemical active which is a quaternary ammonium salt as claimed in Claim 9.
GREENE is used to remedy this and teaches of Sample 2 including acrylic adhesive including 20% by weight of quaternary ammonium salt (chemical active)(paragraph 0072). The acrylic adhesive and salt exhibited a balanced inter-molecular attraction to themselves and each other such that the salt remained suspended within the acrylic adhesive without blooming or crystallizing.
Teaching of suspended/a suspension as done in GREENE shows that the larger size quaternary ammonium salt particles are suspended within the acrylic adhesive—which means that both the quaternary ammonium salt particles and the claimed acrylic adhesive particles are mobile within the suspension since in suspensions all components of a suspension are technically in motion/suspended, until over time gravity causes the larger particles to separate out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a mobile coating comprised of two coatings interacting together and specifically a quaternary ammonium salt as done in GREENE in the system and methods of LIN and MCDANIEL due to the advantage this has for functionalizing the components coated on while maintaining adhesive strength (paragraph 0072, 0078).
With respect to Claim 10, LIN teaches that the sensor comprises a first electrode electronically coupled to second electrode. This method comprises applying a fixed alternating current voltage in a frequency sweep mode is applied to the first electrode in a sensor architecture where the material layer (with insulating layer) is disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode; and the alternating current voltage. The method further comprises measuring an output current that results from the application of the alternating current voltage, and then using the output current measured observe or infer impedance characteristics of the material layer disposed over the first electrode and the second electrode (this means there is a region of coating between the electrodes) (paragraph 0027).
With respect to Claim 16, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes (paragraph 0008).
With respect to Claim 17, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes and that the voltage is applied and sensed at multiple frequencies which includes single frequencies (abstract, paragraph 0005-0008).
With respect to Claim 18, LIN teaches of a meter applying AC voltage/impedance (AC waveform) to the electrodes and that the voltage is applied and sensed at multiple frequencies which includes single frequencies (abstract, paragraph 0005-0008).
Claim 4 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of MCDANIEL in US 20100233146 and in further view of GREENE in in US 20100036230 and further in view of JU in Equilibrium and dynamic surface tension of quaternary ammonium salts with different hydrocarbon chain length of couterions and further in view of DUSTIN in US 20190048223.
With respect to Claim 4, LIN in view of MCDANIEL in view of GREENE and JU teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of the biphasic material having the claimed phase separation of 10 nm to 1 mm.
DUSTIN is used to remedy this and teaches of a multiphase polymer composition comprises a first and second polymer material that are microphase-separated on a microphase-separation length scale from about 0.1 to about 500 µm (500 um= .5 millimeter, so this falls within the claimed range) (so a bi-phasic material), wherein the composition comprises first solid functional particles selectively dispersed within said first polymer material (paragraph 0008, Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biphasic material having a phase separation size as in DUSTIN in the system of LIN, MCDANIEL, GREENE and JU due to the need in the art for better multifunctional coating materials with reactive particles that cannot normally be mixed or associated with one another and due to the advantage that these coatings with this phase size can have for maintaining mechanical integrity of coatings such as for corrosion resistance (DUSTIN, paragraph 0006) and due to the advantage this phase separation has for responding to environmental input (DUSTIN, paragraph 0008).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of MCDANIEL in US 20100233146 and in further view of GREENE in in US 20100036230. and further in view of MACKAY in US 20180059101.
With respect to Claim 11, LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY is used to remedy this and teaches a system for an impedance-based molecular sensing, the system comprising: a coating disposed on a substrate (abstract, paragraph 0126, 0125);
The coating of the substrate extends between two electrodes (paragraph 0126). Molecular recognition elements (MRE/s) are bound to the substrate or the coating of the substrate (paragraph 0126) (these MREs can be considered the “chemical active,” in the coating and can be considered to be ionically conductive- as claimed through broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)).
MACKAY teaches that the MREs in the coating can be polymers (paragraph 0139). Further- MACKAY teaches that the substrate can be modified/coated with a layer or layers of chemically bound entities such as polymers (paragraph 0174).
MACKAY further teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) with one being disposed at or near and external surface of the coating and the other is distally disposed at the other/opposite end of the coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to space the electrodes apart as is done in MACKAY in the devices of LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE due to the advantage this gives the device for a reaction or detection to occur between the electrodes as is done in MACAKAY to determine the presence of analyte or target (MACKAY, paragraph 0126).
With respect to Claim 12, LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) both being “at least partially embedded,” or “pressed against an external surface,” in/on the coating which can be considered the coating on substrate 702 that the electrodes are placed on top of which reads on “partially embedded,” in through broadest reasonable interpretation, or can read on 707 which is an electrical double layer of ions which can also be considered a coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to embed the electrodes as is done in MACKAY in the devices of LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE due to the advantage this gives the device for a reaction or detection to occur between the electrodes as is done in MACAKAY to determine the presence of analyte or target (MACKAY, paragraph 0126).
With respect to Claim 13, LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches of the electrodes (704 & 706) both being “at least partially embedded,” in the coating which can be considered the coating on substrate 702 that the electrodes are placed on top of which reads on “partially embedded,” in through broadest reasonable interpretation, or can read on 707 which is an electrical double layer of ions which can also be considered a coating (See Figure 7, paragraph 0147, 0126). See reason for combination from Claim 12.
With respect to Claim 14, LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches that the first and second electrodes are each in the form of parallel lines or parallel shapes (see figure 3: two electrodes (302, 304) are each in the form of parallel shapes). GREENE also teaches of the electrodes being parallel shapes (Figure 4). Though MACKAY does not teach of the electrodes each being in concentric circles, however, it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to Claim 15, LIN and MCDANIEL and GREENE teach of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the claimed specifics of the electrode/coatings arrangement.
MACKAY teaches that the first and second electrodes are each in the form of parallel lines or parallel shapes (see figure 3: two electrodes (302, 304) are each in the form of parallel shapes). See reason for combination from Claim 12.
Claim 26 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by LIN in US 20200315504 in view of MCDANIEL in US 20100233146 and in further view of GREENE in in US 20100036230 and further in view of JU in Equilibrium and dynamic surface tension of quaternary ammonium salts with different hydrocarbon chain length of counterions and further in view of RODDECHA in Mechanical properties and ionic conductivity of electrospun quaternary ammonium isomers.
With respect to Claim 26, LIN, MCDANIEL and GREENE and JU teach of the above, but do not teach that the chemical active (quaternary ammonium salt)having an ionic conductivity from about 10*-5 mS/cm to 10 *-1ms/cm at room temperature, though it is noted that this is a material property so teaching of the compound also teaches of this property.
RODDECHA is used to remedy this and teaches of using quaternary ammonium salts/ionomers (abstract) and further of using quaternary ammonium polysulfones (quaternary ammonium salts) with reported ionic conductivities of 0.01S/cm(Page 479, column 1, first paragraph, last 2 lines). It would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use quaternary ammonium salts with the conductivity of RODDECHA in the systems of LIN, MCDANIEL, GREENE, and JU due to the advantage this has shown for being a solution processable conductivity without the expense of mechanical properties (Page 479, column 1, first paragraph, last 2 lines and column 2, first two lines).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant mentions amendments to Claims 19, 23, and new claims 27-28. These claims are all drawn to a non-elected invention. Therefore, they have not been examined. Claims 1, 4-5, & 7-18, 26 (including newly added claim 26 which depends on the elected group) have been fully considered and examined.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the prior art, applicant argues that the primary reference LIN does not teach that the analyte sensing layer 11 is contained within the coating protective layer 106. Applicant argues that instead layer 110 is not actually “contained within,” the layer 106, but instead it is adjacently disposed. The examiner disagrees with this, as you can see on the figure below, Figure 6 of LIN that layer 110 is contained within or between layer 106 on both sides of 104.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the other arguments made they all apply to references or grounds or rejection that are no longer relied upon for this RCE.
It is noted that applicant has request rejoinder of independent claims 19 & 23 and the claims which depend therefrom. The examiner notes that applicant has maintained amendments to be consistent with the examined claims and therefore rejoinder will likely be considered at the time if allowability is determined.
All examined claims remain rejected at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GRYTHE in Diffusion rates and the role of diffusion in solid propellant rocket motor adhesion. 2006 (Year: 2006), as shown in the last office action, but no longer relied upon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights